Sh. Ankit Jain, Uttar Pradesh V. ITO, Uttar Pradesh

ITA 2225/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3575 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 12-07-2010
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRATIMA KAUSHIK
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN ITA NO. 2225(DEL)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SHRI ANKIT JAIN, INCOME-TAX OFFICER, S/O SH. RAMESH CHAND JAIN, VS. WARD B ARAUT, UTTAR PRADESH 18/289, GANDHI ROAD, BARAUT. (U.P) PAN-AEFPJ-3901E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY: SMT. PRATIMA KAUSHIK, SR. DR ORDER PER K.D. RANJAN: A.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2006-07 ARISES OUT OF ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS), MEERUT. NONE ATTE NDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE CASE CAME UP FOR HEARING. HAVI NG REGARD TO THE ISSUE INVOLVED, THE APPEAL IS DECIDED AFTER HEARING L EARNED SR. DR. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION RELATES TO SU STAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,63,262/-. THE FACTS OF THE CASE STATED IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE AO WHILE COMPLETING ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) MADE ADD ITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF FOLLOWING:- (I) RS. 50,000/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK; ITA NO. 2225(DEL)/2010 2 (II) RS. 12,322/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN CASH BALANCE; (III) RS. 20,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOS IT, EXPENDITURE & LOSS; (IV) RS. 440/- AS UNEXPLAINED BANK INTEREST; AND (V) RS. 80,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED ACCRE TION TO THE ASSETS. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED RS. 2.00 LAKH AS ADVANCE AGAINST PROPERTY FROM SMT. KOKILA JAIN. SINCE NO DETAILS ABOUT THE PROPERTY AGAINST WHICH ADVANCE WAS RECEIVED, WERE GIVEN, THE AO ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 50,000/-. THE AO ALSO FOUND IN THE STAT EMENT OF AFFAIRS THE BANK BALANCE OF RS. 3,562/-. HOWEVER, AS PER THE PAS S BOOK, THE BALANCE WAS RS.. 15,884/-. THE AO ADDED THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 12,322/- AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT. THE AO ALSO NOTED DEPOSITS IN CASH TOTALING TO RS. 20,500/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO G IVE THE SOURCES OF FUNDS, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 20,500/- WAS ADDED. FURTHER, T HE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED INTEREST OF RS. 29/- AS TAXABLE AS AGAINST RS. 469/-. THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 440/- WAS ADDED AS UNDISCLOSED INTEREST. THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT THERE WAS INCREASE IN ADVANCE AGAINST THE ASSES SEE BY RS. 80,000/-. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ADVANCE OF RS. 2.00 LAKH AGAINST THE SALE OF PROPERTY FROM SMT. KOKILA JAIN. SMT. KOKILA ITA NO. 2225(DEL)/2010 3 JAIN HAD SHOWN THE AMOUNT IN THE DEBIT SIDE OF HE R BALANCE-SHEET, WHICH PROVED THAT THE ADVANCE WAS RECEIVED BY THE A SSESSEE AGAINST THE SALE OF PROPERTY. THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE WAS NO T ACCEPTED BY AO ON THE GROUND THAT DETAILS OF PROPERTY SOLD WERE NOT G IVEN. THE AO ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 80,000/- ALSO. 4. BEFORE CIT(APPEALS), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT RS. 2.00 LAKH WAS RECEIVED IN CASH AS ADVANCE FROM ONE SMT. KOKI LA JAIN, WHO HAD SHOWN THIS AMOUNT IN HER STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS AS ON 31.3.2006. THE SAID ADVANCE WAS AGAINST THE SALE OF PROPERTY, NAMELY, JAIPURIA PROPERTY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY EVIDENCE TO PROV E THE RECEIPT OF RS. 2.00 LAKH, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 50,000/-. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,3 22/-, BEING THE DIFFERENCE IN THE CASH BALANCE AS ALSO THE ADDITION OF RS. 440/ -. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL CONFIRMED THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 20,500/- AND RS. 80,000/- ALSO. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. SENIOR DR. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE AMOUNTS OF RS. 50,000/- AND RS. 80,000/- HAD COME FROM ADVANCE OF RS. 2.00 LAKH RECEIVED FROM SMT. KOKILA JAIN, BUT D ETAILS OF THE PROPERTY ITA NO. 2225(DEL)/2010 4 SSSSSSSAGREED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD WERE NOT SUBMIT TED. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IT IS A CASE WHERE ISSUE SHOULD BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH A FTER AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. WE, T HEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ISSUE RELATING TO ADDITIONS OF RS. 50,000/-, RS. 20,500/- AND RS. 80,000/-, TOTALING TO RS. 1,50,500/-. THE AO WILL EXAMIN E THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM SMT. KOKILA JAIN AGAINST THE SALE OF PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED T O PRODUCE THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE BEFORE AO SO AS TO ENABLE HIM TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS. AS REGARDS THE OTHER ADDITIONS OF RS. 12,322/- AND RS . 440/-, THESE GROUNDS WERE NOT PRESSED BEFORE CIT(APPEALS) AND, THERE FORE, THESE ARE DISMISSED AS SUCH. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16TH JULY, 2010. SD/- SD/- (I.P.BANSAL) (K.D.RANJAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF ORDER: 16TH JULY, 2010. SP SATIA ITA NO. 2225(DEL)/2010 5 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- SHRI ANKIT JAIN, BARAUT. ITO, WARD BARAUT, UTTAR PRADESH. CIT(A), MEERUT. CIT THE DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.